[Contest] Guess when Kim Davis relents and leaves prison!
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
Isn't that kind of like saying that murders are caused by lax gun control?
GasBandit
Staff member
That's true, you said that, and that led to a discussion about the perspectives of those participating in civil disobedience, and how no matter who they are, they consider themselves to be resisting an unjust governmental act, and at this rate we're going to end up transcribing the entire night's conversationWell,
I'd like to point out that I actually pointed out how pot legalizing states were also defying federal law during this conversation, and it was at least three tangents after this that I started getting really bored.
[DOUBLEPOST=1444236582,1444236456][/DOUBLEPOST]
San Francisco explicitly released him to thumb their nose at the ICE and DEA, because they were a sanctuary city. He was a 5 time felon. It's a little different than that.
That's true, you said that, and that led to a discussion about the perspectives of those participating in civil disobedience, and how no matter who they are, they consider themselves to be resisting an unjust governmental act, and at this rate we're going to end up transcribing the entire night's conversation
I think it's a closer argument than you're comfortable admitting.
You can't on the one hand say lax immigration policies are responsible for murder but on the other hand say lax gun control isn't. It's the same argument--either you more tightly control a potentially dangerous element, or you don't. Now, granted, there's no pesky badly worded constitutional amendment to muddy the waters with the immigration issue. But they boil down to the same fundamental issue.
Either a murderer is responsible for their own actions, or they aren't. Only one guy pulled the trigger that day, and I don't think it was the mayor of San Francisco.
GasBandit
Staff member
Not lax immigration policies, refusal to enforce existing immigration policies. I'd say it's closer to cities who refuse to respect the second amendment and do their own draconian gun control laws - and yet are still the areas of highest gun crime in the nation.
I assume she keeps her job, then?
Because if so, I get the feeling this ain't over.
Because if so, I get the feeling this ain't over.
Not only did the state rewrite the laws so the county clerks no longer have to sign marriage certificates but a federal judge dismissed the three remaining cases, indicating “In light of these proceedings, and in view of the fact that the marriage licenses continue to be issued without incident, there no longer remains a case or controversy before the court.”
http://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article96670002.html
I'm not aware of the exact nature of those suits, but given that elected public officials have an amount of discretion in how to execute their duties, the law provides some small amount of qualified immunity from lawsuits, which means the plaintiffs have a higher bar to clear in proving their case:
http://federalpracticemanual.org/chapter8/section2
Since the judge dismissed them just today it'll probably be days or weeks before we hear whether any or all of the plaintiffs will appeal.
Given that the legislature acted quickly to resolve the problem so both same sex couples may exercise their new rights and elected officials may exercise their religious liberty, it wouldn't surprise me if the courts simply took the view that the sudden change in the law nationally simply took some time to resolve at the local level, and that the delays were not significant enough to warrant damages or criminal charges.
http://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article96670002.html
I'm not aware of the exact nature of those suits, but given that elected public officials have an amount of discretion in how to execute their duties, the law provides some small amount of qualified immunity from lawsuits, which means the plaintiffs have a higher bar to clear in proving their case:
http://federalpracticemanual.org/chapter8/section2
Since the judge dismissed them just today it'll probably be days or weeks before we hear whether any or all of the plaintiffs will appeal.
Given that the legislature acted quickly to resolve the problem so both same sex couples may exercise their new rights and elected officials may exercise their religious liberty, it wouldn't surprise me if the courts simply took the view that the sudden change in the law nationally simply took some time to resolve at the local level, and that the delays were not significant enough to warrant damages or criminal charges.
Nope. If giving gay people wedding licenses was something she couldn't bring herself to do, she could've quit.
I know you, like many, are disappointed in the way some things are turning out, but in this case both sides gets what they want. That's rare when two rights conflict for the legislature and the courts to choose a path that allows both sides to exercise their rights.
Making sure that Kim Davis "gets hers" isn't justice, it's vengeance, particularly when it's possible for both sides to get what they need.
I know divisiveness is the plan for the future, but it really only ends in bitterness and resentment.
Making sure that Kim Davis "gets hers" isn't justice, it's vengeance, particularly when it's possible for both sides to get what they need.
I know divisiveness is the plan for the future, but it really only ends in bitterness and resentment.
These people's wedding day was unjustly, unfairly, and against the law, ruined by someone overzealously forcing their beliefs on others, forcing them to go to court and spend hundreds of dollars, as well as becoming the center of attention. Screw that. My religion forbids interracial marriage, I won't give this black-and-white couple a wedding license. Let's see if that'll get cleared up as easily and without reparations. Hah!
Its almost like I want to set a precedent that bigotry and shittiness is not something we will compromise with.
So you're saying that the legislature shouldn't have changed the rules, and that the other states who never did require their Clerk's to sign the certificates should reverse and force them to sign them? Why stop there? Why not legislate that the entire Clerk's office have to cosign them?
Just because it's he first amendment doesn't make it better than the other amendments, but it certainly isn't less important than the others. When we can satisfy both sets of human rights then we are better off than when one side demands and succeeds in stripping rights from the other side.
No, not vengeance. PUNISHMENT.
Anyways, I'm glad it's over so we don't have to see her ugly mug anymore.
Philosophically: JS Mill: her freedom ends where their freedom starts. She can't limit their rights and freedom because she wants to.
Politically: separation of Church and State means what she hands them isn't - and can't be - a religious sacrament. It may bear the same name, but a marriage license is NOT a sacrament. Nowhere does her religion say gay couples can't get a legal contract between them.
Politically: separation of Church and State means what she hands them isn't - and can't be - a religious sacrament. It may bear the same name, but a marriage license is NOT a sacrament. Nowhere does her religion say gay couples can't get a legal contract between them.
We will have to agree to disagree on this issue, because it's obvious you are not interested in opening your mind to the idea that we can have both rights without depriving anyone of either right.
Sure, and black people can have the right to be free, while southern gentlemen can have the right to keep slaves. Some interpretations of some rights are flat out wrong.
"My religion says...." isn't a free card for any kind of crap. There are religions out there that say marriage between castes isn't permitted. There are religions that say you need to cut off a woman's genitals. There are religions that say you must kill a man if he violates the purity of your sister. Religious freedom means you can believe what you want, not that you can act the way you want. As has been proven - in the USA - by Rastafarians being arrested and tried for smoking weed where it's illegal, even though that is, really and actually, a sacrament for them.
Philosophically you subscribe to one variation of humanism. Perhaps you want to restructure society and justice to follow your brand of humanism, but it would take significant effort to do so. Regardless, we aren't very close to it now, so I'm not sure it applies well to this case.
Regarding your interpretation of her religion, it's possible that you don't understand her religion very well. Regardless, she disagrees with you and is exercising her human right of free conscience. Whether the law allows her to exercise that right in this case is what was being argued in the court cases, however the situation has been resolved so both parties can exercise their rights without restricting each other's expression or practice of their rights. Therefore the lawsuits attempt to resolve a moot point.
That's not what this was really about. It was about a centralized authority using her power in a way that was very personal. People are allowed to be bigots. We are not about to start imprisoning people for that.
People are allowed to be bigots. People can not act like bigots when they are representing the government.
Actually, it's good that Kim Davis didn't get more punishment, because then her butthurt fans would have screamed bloody murder and tried to imitate her by engaging in more overt acts of discrimination. Evangelical Christians in the rural US are one of the most prickly, delusional communities who see persecution around every corner. Wish them happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas and they start shrieking that there's a "War on Christmas." If they freaked out so badly last year when Starbucks unveiled a new red cup for the holidays, imagine how they would have reacted if Davis really did get a harsh sentence.
Many of those are great examples where two rights cannot be resolved with both parties allowed to exercise their rights. In those cases we must weight the rights and choose one over the other.
In cases like this where both parties can exercise their rights without conflict, do you suggest that we still remove rights from one party because you disagree with them?
And that was a problem with the government. Otherwise you lock up one person and another comes along to do something similar. I prefer the pragmatic solution to the clearly vengeful one.